Russia has deployed a new cruise missile despite complaints by U.S. officials that it violates an arms control treaty banning ground-based U.S. and Russian intermediate-range missiles, a senior Trump administration official said on Tuesday.

Russia had secretly deployed the ground-launched SSC-8 cruise missile that Moscow has been developing and testing for several years, despite U.S. complaints that it violated sections of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, the official said, confirming a story first reported by the New York Times.

“We know that this is an old issue. The Russians have been building and testing these things in violation of the INF treaty going back to the Obama administration,” the official told Reuters, asking to remain anonymous to speak freely.

"The issue now is the things are deployed and it’s an even greater violation of the INF treaty,” the official added.

The Russian Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the Times story.

The U.S. State Department concluded in a July 2014 arms control report that "the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km (310 miles to 3,420 miles), or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles."

Russia accused Washington of conducting "megaphone diplomacy" after the accusation was repeated by the State Department in 2015. Moscow also denied it had violated the INF treaty, which helped end the Cold War between the two countries.

The previous U.S. administration of President Barack Obama had protested in an attempt to persuade Moscow to correct the violation while the missile was still in the testing phase, the Trump administration official said.

Based on open-source information such as Russian bloggers, they were deployed in the central military district, the administration official said, adding: “We are reviewing it.”

Russia now has two battalions of the cruise missile, the Times report quoted administration officials as saying. One is located at Russia's missile test site at Kapustin Yar in the country's southeast.

The other cruise missile battalion has been located at an operational base elsewhere in Russia, the Times quoted one unidentified official as saying.

(Reporting by David Alexander and Steve Holland; Editing by Susan Heavey, Grant McCool and Lisa Shumaker)

At a school in Sweden, an innocent 9-year-old girl, was sexually assaulted and routinely attacked by migrant children, and the family had to be the ones to report the incident to police.

The school would not report the crime, merely excusing the attack by saying the girl was targeted because “she is blonde and sweet.” (via Mad World News)

The child told her parents about the attacks, including the horrible names she was called by the migrants. Going home didn’t fix the problem. Instead, the boys would run her home from school and threaten to “pick her,” meaning sexually assault her once again.

One day in the cafeteria, one of the students pulled down her clothing and moved against her in a sexual manner while all the other children were watching. When the parents went to the school in an outrage, the school explained it away.

The only thing the school did was offer to drive the girl home so she did not have to ride on the bus. The parents have met with officials from the school several times. When the school refused to report the attack, the parents went to the police themselves. Eventually, the parents changed school districts to protect their innocent daughter from the horrible abuse of these migrants.

Now the school is being investigated by child services because they refused to address the situation. This poor girl was subjected to abuse because she was a female, at the hands of these violent migrant boys, and no one has even been charged yet.

Neither will the mainstream media report that these boys are migrants, even though the school is using the excuse of “cultural diversity” for the attack. But this is not the only attack, there are tons of Muslims attacking and raping women and girls in Europe.

In their culture, it is okay to do this because their god, Allah, has “given” blonde women and girls to Muslims as sex slaves. The children must be aware of this horrible behavior committed in their home country, and maybe even by their family members.

Sweden is plagued with many crimes of this nature, and is now considered the rape capital of the West. The reality is that 1 in every 4 women in the country will be raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, which is 500 percent more sexual assaults than were committed before the migrants came to the country. This is the message we need to make sure people in this country understand.

This problem is spreading around the world, in every country where these migrants are squatting. They believe that women are property, who are to be controlled and maintained by men. This is what America and the rest of the world is saying is “okay.”

Rape and sexual assault of our women cannot be tolerated! These heinous crimes need to be punished, and these migrants need to go back to their own countries.

Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system, has got a new nightmare on her hands. Having already failed to protect the right of Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the University of California, Berkeley, she is now on notice that she has a second chance to meet those who openly proclaim their disruptive intent with sufficient force to uphold the civil rights of Milo and those who want to hear him. Yesterday,

Milo Yiannopoulos made an announcement Saturday morning that may have members of the East Bay up in arms all over again.

He says he is planning on returning to Berkeley to give the speech he was unable to deliver earlier this week when chaos broke out over his appearance.

“I’m planning to return to Berkeley to give the speech I was prevented from delivering,” Yiannopoulos said in a Facebook post. “Hopefully within the next few months. I’ll keep you posted.”

Napolitano, along with the Mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, failed to request adequate assistance to prevent the violence that had been signaled by Leftists who cannot survive an airing of contrary views. Evidently, officers were issued orders and/or lacked equipment that could have prevented the violence that caused cancellation of the lecture. Water cannons are made for the purpose of breaking up violent mobs before they can do their worst. If the Campus police or Berkeley PD lack the equipment, there must be other agencies that have water cannons. The masked, uniformed, armed thugs who marched onto the Berkeley campus could have been thwarted much earlier. They were already violating the law, and should have been ordered to disperse. As the former head of the Department of Homeland Security, Napolitano ought to have been supremely qualified to understand and overcome the threat.

Of course, Janet Napolitano, when serving in that highly sensitive post, absurdly claimed, “The system worked,” when it was left to passengers (not anyone related to DHS or its overseas counterparts) on a Christmas Day Delta flight from Amsterdam to Detroit to thwart a bomber who was attempting to ignite explosives on the crowded jumbo jet.

She should not be allowed to make such a counterfactual claim again. The University of California system has a very checkered past when it comesto upholding the civil rights of conservatives in general, and Milo Yiannopoulos in particular. The Associated Press reported January 14th this year:

While she is preparting to use her Homeland Security expertise to allow Milo to give his speech (this time televised, please, so that everyone can check out what kind of "white nationalist" he is and come to tbheir own conclusions about the media who mischaracterized him), she might also check into this employee of hers. Via Gateway Pundit:

A UC Berkeley rioter and thug who bragged online about beating conservatives outside the Milo Yiannopoulos speech on Wednesday night — works at the university.

Dabney Miller, a staff member at the UC Berkeley, bragged about how he beat conservatives. He posted images of one man he knocked to the ground and pummeled with his fists before someone pulled him away.

Dabney Miller draws a paycheck from the UC Berkeley administration.

Tattoos: check

Earrings: check

Wifebeater shirt: check

And best of all, he's Caucasian, so nobody can call his critics racists.

The Left may have won the skirmish at, but it will lose the war. Milo Yiannopoulos does not cut and run; he retreats, regroups, and responds at a time of his choosing. I can think of no more splendid example of the same spirit than this:

BuzzFeed is facing a lawsuit from a technology firm following its publicationof an unverified dossier claiming President Donald Trump has close ties to the Russian government.

According to a report by McClatchy DC, XBT Holdings — a technology firm named in the dosser with Russian interests — is filing a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed, its editor-in-chief Ben Smith, as well as former British intelligence spy Christopher Steele, for the publication of what it describes as “libelous, unverified and untrue allegations.”

“The dossier included libelous, unverified and untrue allegations regarding XBT, Webzilla and Gubarev. The lawsuits seek yet undetermined compensation for the damages suffered by XBT, Webzilla and Gubarev as the result of the publication of the dossier,” a statement from XBT read.

“We were shocked to see our good name wrongly included and published in this unsubstantiated report. We are confident that the courts will review the evidence of our non-involvement and provide fair and reasonable compensation from the perpetrators of this outrageous allegation,” it continued.

Some of the unverified claims included in the dossier were that Donald Trump had worked in collaboration with the Russian government in the hacking of DNC internal emails. as well as that Trump had participated in extremely graphic sexual fetishism in the Moscow Ritz-Carlton.

The dossier also implicated the Russian technology entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev as being heavily involved in the collaboration, without providing any evidence to substantiate the claim. BuzzFeed has since retracted his name from the dossier and apologized for its publication, although the lawsuit contends that it has left his “personal and professional reputation in tatters,” and presented a threat to his family’s safety.

Much of the intelligence provided in the dossier came from the former British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by Trump’s opponents in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to conduct research and investigate his past. Following its publication, Steele went into hiding.

CNN also republished the claims, although they are not named in the lawsuit.

Responding to the claims last month, Trump described the dossier as “fake news,” adding that BuzzFeed was “a failing pile of garbage.”

Director Judd Apatow, known for "Knocked Up" and "Trainwreck," said in a now-deleted tweet about the riots, "This is just the beginning. When will all the fools who are still supporting Trump realize what is at stake?"

Filmmaker Lexi Alexander chimed in, defending the riot on Twitter telling her followers to "punch Nazis," "riot when your college invites a Nazi," and "set it all on fire."

During a listening session for Black History Month on Wednesday, President Donald Trump said, “I don’t watch CNN. … I don’t like watching fake news.”

Trump said, “You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago, when somebody said I took the statue out of my office, and it turned out that that was fake news. The statue is cherished. It’s one of the favorite things in the — and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson and we have Dr. Martin Luther King, and we have –, but they said the statue, the bust of Dr. Martin Luther King was taken out of the office, and it was never even touched. So, I think it was a disgrace, but that’s the way the press is, very unfortunate.”

Guandolo Breitbart News the San Bernardino terrorist, the UC Merced stabber, the Chattanooga shooter, and the Boston Bombers can all be traced back to such Islamic Centers where “they were supported and trained.”

Guandolo said that the San Bernardino terrorists attended the Islamic Center of Riverside, which he said was a “a Muslim Brotherhood Center.” He noted that the Boston Bombers attended the Islamic Society of Boston, which he said was a subsidiary of the Islamic Society of North America that was founded by an al-Qaeda guy who used to advise former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore and is now in prison.

Former FBI counter-terrorism Special Agent John Guandolo says the “vast majority” of the 2,200 Islamic organizations, centers, and mosques in the United States are a part of a broader “Jihadi network” intent on imposing Sharia Law in America.

Guandolo Breitbart News the San Bernardino terrorist, the UC Merced stabber, the Chattanooga shooter, and the Boston Bombers can all be traced back to such Islamic Centers where “they were supported and trained.”

Guandolo said that the San Bernardino terrorists attended the Islamic Center of Riverside, which he said was a “a Muslim Brotherhood Center.” He noted that the Boston Bombers attended the Islamic Society of Boston, which he said was a subsidiary of the Islamic Society of North America that was founded by an al-Qaeda guy who used to advise former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore and is now in prison.

He said there are over 2,200 Islamic Centers and mosques in America and the “vast majority of them are a part of this network — they’re hostile.”

He said “over 75%” of these centers, based on their property records, are a part of the “Muslim Brotherhood network” since they are “owned by the North American Islamic Trust, which is the bank for the Muslim Brotherhood here.”

He said “in 2006, I put together the first training program inside the government on the jihadi network in the United States… and was able to sneak a second one in in early 2007.”

Guandolo trained “quite a number of agents from a variety of agencies,” including the Department of Justice, before the government shut down the programs. He mentioned that the “most prominent Muslim Brotherhood Organizations like the Islamic Society of North America, Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Hamas organization called the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) — complained to the White House about the training inside the government at the FBI.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer denounced critics of President Donald Trump’s International Holocaust Remembrance Day statement as “pathetic,” after the media pointed out that Trump failed to refer to Jews in his statement.

“It is pathetic that people are picking on his statement,” Spicer said, when asked about Jewish critics of the statement during the White House press briefing. The statement recognized “the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust” but did not specifically mention “Jews.”

Spicer said that a staffer at the White House helped draft the statement who was both Jewish and the descendant of a Holocaust survivors.

“The president went out of his way to recognize the Holocaust and the suffering that went through it and the people that were affected by it and the loss of life, and to make sure that America never forgets what so many people went through, whether they were Jews or Gypsies, gays, disability, priests,” Spicer said.

The Republican Jewish Coalition reacted to Trump’s statement, calling it a “painful omission.” The Zionist Organization of America specified “our chagrin and deep pain” for failing to specifically mention Jews or the anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust.

Spicer reminded critics that Trump was very supportive of the nation of Israel, and suggested that there was a double standard in the media for the Obama’s administration’s failures.

“At the end of the day, I don’t think when you look at state of Israel or the Jewish people themselves, I think there has been no better friend to Donald Trump especially after the last eight years. The tremendous respect that he’s shown Israel, the Jewish people, and to suggest anything otherwise is frankly a little disappointing.” Spicer said.

Polls taken in 2016 show the American public strongly backs Donald Trump’s dramatic immigration policy change, which says the United States will revive the traditional practice of excluding migrants hostile to Americans’ civic society and constitutional traditions.

That’s the dramatic policy change — not Trump’s other curbs on Muslim refugee inflow — which has caused a dramatic wave of TV-magnified protests by left-wing, Islamic and Latino groups.

Trump is doing what American voters prefer. In June 2015, for example, a poll showed that 56 percent of Americans want to exclude migrants who believe in Islam’s sharia law, which requires that democracy and civic norms by subordinated the Islamic scriptures. In contrast, only about 20 percent of Americans told the pollster that they did not oppose the immigration of people who believe in sharia law.

Trump’s support for American culture is the centerpiece of his Friday order on immigration, but the policy’s importance has been overlooked by the TV-magnified protests.

Trump’s American-first declaration is a huge reform because it directly rejects the claim by globalist progressives — including former President Barack Obama — that foreign people have the same rights as Americans, including the right to live in the United States, regardless of who Americans prefer to invite into their home.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Obama described the prior globalist policy in a Nov. 2014 speech to Democratic supporters in Chicago:

Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently. And that, sometimes, has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration. If you look at the history of immigration in this country, each successive wave, there have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks’ — even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans.

When I hear folks talking as if somehow these [foreign] kids are different than my kids or less worthy in the eyes of God, that somehow that they are less worthy of our respect and consideration and care, I think that’s un-American. I don’t believe that, I think it is wrong and I think we should do better, because that’s how America was made.

Obama’s outside policy is expressed more crudely by the alliance of Islamic and left-wing groups which is now protesting Trump’s pro-America immigration policy at airports.

“The reality, though, is that the situation [of large Islamic populations] that exists today in parts of France, in parts of Germany, in Belgium, etcetera, is not a situation we want replicated inside the United States,” the official said.

The kind of large and permanent domestic terror threat that becomes multi-dimensional and multi-generational and becomes sort of a permanent feature, in case this, becomes a permanent feature of American life. We don’t want a situation where, 20 to 30 years from now, it’s just like a given thing that on a fairly regular basis there is domestic terror strikes, stores are shut up or that airports have explosive devices planted, or people are mowed down in the street by cars and automobiles and things of that nature…

The United States is sovereign country. It is under no obligation to admit any particular person and we have a right to develop a system in which we’re selecting immigrants that we think will be able to make positive contributions to U.S. society.

This pro-American policy is a huge threat to many advocacy groups, such as the orthodox Islamist groups now pushing to increase the inflow of Muslims into Americans society, the Latino advocacy groups who want more Latino voters, and the elitist Democratic Party, which expects to win national power by collecting votes from diverse immigrant voters.

But Trump’s huge shift to pro-American immigration policy was welcomed by opponents of political Islam, including best-selling author Robert Spencer, an expert on Islam. The new policy, he wrote:

indicates that they know exactly what they’re doing. This isn’t something they put together in a week; this is evidence of their entire thinking on Islam and the defence of the west. They’re going to treat Islam as a hostile political ideology. That is what has been needed for decades. It is the reversal of the “Islam is a religion of peace” doctrine set in place by Bush on September 17, 2001.

Many polls show that majorities of Americans are skeptical of immigrants’ impact on American society, worry about imported jihad terrorism, oppose any increase above the current level of million immigrants per year — that is roughly one new immigrant for every four American births — and also oppose the continued inflow of cheap labor and unskilled refugees.

only 22 percent of Ipsos’ respondents want the United States to accept 10,000 or more migrants [per year]. That number includes 10 percent who want the country to accept 500,000 or more migrants. Another 26 percent of Americans said they would accept up to 10,000 refugees. The survey did not say that the country already accepts 70,000 refugees per year. Twenty-four percent said they want no additional refugees above the 1,500, and 29 percent declined to answer the poll, indicating quiet opposition to greater inflows.

three in ten Americans overall (36%) support taking in refugees from Syria. A majority of Democrats (56%) support admitting Syrian refugees; in contrast only minorities of Republicans (18%) and Independents (32%) agree.

These skeptical attitudes however, are balanced with Americans’ decent emotional welcome for most individual immigrants, and with their gratitude for the nation’s generous history of immigration and support for constitutional rights. A December 2015 poll of 1,140 registered voters by Quinnipiac showed that:

most voters said Syrian refugees should not be allowed to come to the U.S., [but] most voters opposed banning all Muslims from coming to the U.S., with 66 percent of voters opposing the idea and 27 percent supporting a ban. A majority of Republicans, however, 51 – 41 percent, approved of a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. Democrats largely opposed a ban, 79-18 percent, as did independent voters, 67-22 percent.

So the polling data suggests that Americans want their freedoms shared with Muslims now living in the United States — but they don’t want more Muslims to come live in the United States.

When the poll asked “Would you support or oppose banning Muslims from entering the United States?” 60 percent of the state’s GOP voters said they would support a ban. But only 29 percent of respondents said they would “support … shutting down mosques” in the United States, and only 25 percent said the disliked Islamic doctrines [of sharia] should be illegal.

In June 2016, a poll of 803 registered voters was conducted by OpinionSavvy, via telephone, using automated questions, and with a margin of error at 3.5 percent.

First, the poll asked whether tourists and immigrants should be screened to check for their possible support of Islamic sharia. Seventy percent of respondents approved of the screening. The poll then asked the 70 percent; “Do you believe that individuals who support the practice of [Islamic] Sharia law should be admitted into the United States?” No, responded four-fifths of the 70 percent. That translates into 56 percent of total respondents preferring to exclude additional sharia-supporting Muslims. The overall opposition to the exclusion of sharia supporters added up to just 20 percent, with the rest undecided.

The push and pull of these rival emotions, however, is overwhelmingly subordinated to Americans’ lopsided desire that companies hire Americans first before importing more foreign immigrations or foreign contract workers. Polls shows that roughly 80 percent of Americans say companies should hire of young Americans before hiring migrants.

A July 2016 poll shows that roughly three out of four voters— including nearly three out of four Democrat voters— believe that “instead of giving jobs and healthcare to millions of refugees from around the world, we should rebuild our inner cities and put Americans back to work.” The view was shared by almost 90 percent of African-Americans and almost 70 percent of Hispanics.

In 2016, Trump’s focus on jobs for Americans — instead of additional immigration championed by Hillary Clinton — helped him win critical majority in the so-called “Blue Wall” states of Wisconsin Pennsylvania and Michigan. So now he is implementing the voters’ preferences, amid a growing roar of protest from the elite-led coalition of immigrant and ethnic-minority political activists.

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico’s top diplomat said Monday his country will spend about $50 million to hire lawyers for migrants in the United States facing deportation.

The money will be channeled through Mexican consulates in the U.S. and also go to outreach programs “to promote respect for Mexicans’ rights.”

Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Videgaray said the effort “isn’t about obstructing the enforcement of the law in the United States, or much less opposing law enforcement.”

“We are going to focus the money on one fundamental objective, which is the defense of the rights of Mexicans. This means legal advice, informational campaigns, the hiring of lawyers where it is necessary.”

Videgaray also says Mexico understands “it will be necessary to make some changes” to the North American Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and Canada. U.S. President Donald Trump has pledged to re-negotiate NAFTA.

But he said Monday that Mexico won’t accept a return to protectionist policies such as import quotas or tariffs.

He mentioned including things such as e-commerce, which didn’t exist when NAFTA took effect in 1994. Videgaray did not specify what other changes Mexico would be open to, but did say the country wanted “integrated negotiations, where all topics will be discussed and the dialogue won’t be limited to commercial aspects, for example, but also include issues like immigration and security.”

Along with renegotiating NAFTA, Trump has pledged to increase the deportations of people who are in the United States illegally, positions that have caused major frictions with Mexico.

Videgaray said Mexico wants to diversify its trade. At present, about 80 percent of Mexico’s exports go to the United States.

He said Mexico wants to improve trade with Latin American countries, Japan and especially South Korea.

Mexico also wants to negotiate free trade agreements with Brazil and Argentina and attract foreign investment from China, the foreign relations secretary said.